CNN reports that a U.S. Navy patrol craft fired warning shots at an Iranian vessel:
A US Navy patrol craft fired three warning shots at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps boat Wednesday after US officials said it had harassed that patrol craft, CNN has learned. Another US patrol craft and a Kuwaiti Navy ship were also harassed in the incident, which took place in the northern end of the Persian Gulf.
At one point, the Iranian boat came within 200 yards of one of the US Navy boats. When it failed to leave the area after the Navy had fired flares and had a radio conversation with the Iranian crew, the US officials said, the USS Squall fired three warning shots. Following standard maritime procedures, the Navy fired the three shots into the water to ensure the Iranians understood they needed to leave the immediate area.
Also at Reuters.
The incident occurred a day after four Iranian vessels made a "high speed intercept" of a U.S. warship.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:42PM
Nothing to worry about. After all, Hillary solved that whole Iran thing for us anyway, didn't she? [hillaryclinton.com]
No wait, Donald will make a bigger and better deal for us there, right? [washingtonpost.com]
Oh, well Gary Johnson thinks we should have trade with Iran, the nuclear deal was wrong, and Iran sponsors terrorism but isn't a military threat. So he proposes to do.... what again? [wikipedia.org]
And Jill Stein apparently thinks we should make love not war to Iran and they could be our friends. [presidential-candidates.org]
Damn. Screwed four ways. Can't wait to see how these piggies wiggle their positions in light of this.
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Friday August 26 2016, @06:46PM
I don't think you can make that statement about Jill Stein.
Diplomacy, international law, and human rights is hardly singing love songs to hostile foreign countries. Diplomacy doesn't imply that, nor does international law, and only human rights *might* be interpreted that way. The latter could just as easily be interpreted as "sanctions until you stop abusing your own people".
Sorry, I didn't read a love note there, and she is committed to a nuclear free Middle East. Hardly sounds like a push-over.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:10PM
In other words, "false equivalency is false." News at 11.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday August 26 2016, @10:14PM
Women in politics, eh!
Let's all give a small cheer to:
and of course their counterparts in the Iranian government, dr. Mohammad Javad Zarif [wikipedia.org] and his negotiators.
http://www.politico.eu/article/the-women-behind-the-nuclear-deal/ [politico.eu]
Years of serious negotiations >> dicking around with armed boats in each others vicinity
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday August 26 2016, @11:12PM
I don't see a huge gulf between "a foreign policy that creates allies not enemies" and "we should make love not war to Iran and they could be our friends." The latter has a pejorative tone but they're not 29 miles apart.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday August 26 2016, @11:28PM
Yeah, I don't see creating allies as synonymous with making sweet love to them :)
The statement implies to me that it would be better to create mutually beneficially relationships than it is to make enemies. Common sense to me.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 26 2016, @10:24PM
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:01AM
Good trick to infiltrate: the Iranians always welcome unicorn herds, because of the cost-cutting that results on virginity tests.
We need to ask our best friends across the gulf if they still have a few spare ones, or if they all got stoned after having contact with impure women rounded up by the morality police.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @11:37AM
You against men marrying cute female children, faggot?
Old Testament allows it too.